Danny Jowenko - Manipulated by 9/11 Deniers

[TruthersLie]

You should require more than one peer reviewed journal article, but you asked for one.

Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe by Niels H. Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven E. Jones, et. al Bentham Open Chemistry & Physics Journal.

It is a peer reviewed journal. Open means that it does not require a paid subscription to view. Just Google "Bentham Journal thermite" and look at the top.

Reading for comprehension isn't your strong suit is it?

I asked for a peer reviewed engineering journal. This is a vanity publication with a LONG history of publishing crap.

http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2009/06/hoax-exposes-incompetence-or-worse-at.html

You really should look up what peer reviewed means. And then you should look up what a peer reviewed engineering journal means.

Or we can examine the 20 major methodological errors in this "paper." For a good examination of that you can look up the threads "an excellent analysis of dr jones latest paper."

Try again. This time with REAL science.

 

[TruthersLie]

>"There are submittions to the Journal of 9/11 Studies..."
This supposed quote is repeated a few times on Google. But there are no references which prove that Noam ever said such a thing, not even on Chomsky.info, a web site made "with the purpose of celebrating Chomsky's work" with books, articles, interviews, talks, debates, and letters. A search of "9/11 studies" comes up empty. You should provide a source, or remove the bogus quote.

Oh... poor twoof.

I took it from Mark Roberts (gravy) on his page
http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/
and IIRC it is in one of the numerous videos of chomsky destroying 9/11 on youtube. But I don't remember which video. Look it up yourself.

Now unless you can definately prove that he has never said it, then I will be more than happy to leave it right where it is.

Noam Chomsky has made his disdain for truthers rather well known (he thinks you are bat **** crazy but is too polite to phrase it like that).

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Danny Jowenko responds and elaborates (not "very brief statements") in his phone interview, at 1:28 on YouTube QajDxF9uEf4: "When FEMA makes a report, that it came down by fire, and you have to earn your money in the States as a controlled demolition company, and you say 'no, it was contolled demolition', you're gone, you know?" Danny does not go along with a lie, just to get business, like many cowardly and greedy contolled demolition companies. He is a strong man, who speaks the truth as he sees it, and is not manipulated by anyone.

The context that's missing is that Jowenko also was only shown a brief video of the fires and also was not told the extent of the interior damage of the building. And in any opinions rendered since then, he has not demonstrated that he's made any study of what was known about the fires and damage done to 7 World Trade. In short, he gives no indication that his statements are anything more than quickly rendered opinions based on little more than what truthers have presented himz. Even if you give him credit for a serious rendition of an opinion, he still has not provided nearly enough rigor to stand up against even the most cursory of actual studies. If he would take the time to construct a more formal hypothesis complete with supporting arguments, like Steven Jones did, then we can consider his opinion be properly a fair retort to formal works. Until then, it's literally nothing more than hot air.

 

[triforcharity]

You should require more than one peer reviewed journal article, but you asked for one.

Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe by Niels H. Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven E. Jones, et. al Bentham Open Chemistry & Physics Journal.

It is a peer reviewed journal. Open means that it does not require a paid subscription to view. Just Google "Bentham Journal thermite" and look at the top.

Oh, the pay-To-publish journal where the editor QUIT in disgust? You mean THAT "peer-reviewed" journal?

Yeah, Bentham is a sham. Their peer reviewed consisted of "did the check clear?"

Also, their whole experiment is flawed. Why you ask? They did not test in an inert environment.

Try again twoofie.

 

[triforcharity]

Yes but they have not produced one movie between them. What do you expect us to do... read this stuff!?

LOL!! BOOKS ON TAPE MAN!! Just sleep through it, and it is absorbed like osmosis.

 

[triforcharity]

Let's just take the first of your long list of articles which supposedly support the Bush Story for the Gullible (buildings collapsed due to fire alone). The list is from the AE911Truth.info site of Joseph Nobles, a voice writer with no degree in engineering (but a BA in Bible and dropped out of his Masters program).

I read the article "Performance Based Structural Fire Engineering for Modern Building Design" by Darline Rini and Susan Lamont. These ladies do not support the BS4G. This is a false reference, calling your other so called "references" in to question. They merely state:

"While current practice in the United States is primarily prescriptive in nature, performance based structural fire engineering is beginning to have an impact on building design particularly as architects conceive more complex designs and engineers have an increased understanding of structural fire response from the WTC collapse and more recently the Windsor tower fire in Madrid. "

Have you actually READ the paper? I have. You read the preface of the paper. Did you read the rest of it? Did you read the FULL paper? Cause, you have to pay for that you know.

 

[TruthersLie]

>"There are submittions to the Journal of 9/11 Studies..."
This supposed quote is repeated a few times on Google. But there are no references which prove that Noam ever said such a thing, not even on Chomsky.info, a web site made "with the purpose of celebrating Chomsky's work" with books, articles, interviews, talks, debates, and letters. A search of "9/11 studies" comes up empty. You should provide a source, or remove the bogus quote.

At about 7 minutes in to this he runs down the 9/11 "journals." It isn't the exact quote... but it is pretty close.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2uIRfyrMGM0

Oh goody. I found it.
EAT IT.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NtA63_9tNV0&feature=related

at 320.

So what was that again twoof? Hmmmm? That would be that this FACTUAL quote is EXACTLY what I posted. Thank you for playing.

That is why you don't just trust google. As he states in the video, you can't get that type of experience with a few hours on google.

Try again.

 

[Baylor]

Let's take #3 on your list of "references" supporting the BS4G. This article has statements supporting what the Truthers have been saying all along. Strike 3. "Collapse of towers as applied to September 11 events" by G. P. Cherepanov:

Abstract The subject of the paper is the collapse of towers and highscrapers, particularly, the collapse of the World Trade Center towers in New York on September 11, 2001. The deduced equations of progressive collapse are used to refute the generally accepted opinion of experts about progressive collapse of the WTC towers in the free-fall regime, which is the official version of the US government. It is proved that progressive collapse is much slower than free fall.

my hi-lite. his/her bold

Sigh. We've been through this. Had you actually read the papers, like Dave Rogers, you wouldn't've foolishly bolded selected parts.

edit - this deserves a laughing dog. The hi-lited part would be Stundie worthy if it weren't arcane.

Don't take these two seriously. Cherepanov isn't a conspiracy theorist, but he's addicted to a different form of woo; he thinks that steel buildings are so highly stressed that a single shock can shatter them instantly like glass. He wrote a couple of papers based on a complete failure even to look at the real world features of the collapse, which simply don't bear the most superficial critical examination. I've commented on them here in the past; they're very, very bad.

And yet they got through a genuine peer review, unlike anything by Steven Jones. Funny, that.

Dave

 

[Baylor]

Let's just take the first of your long list of articles which supposedly support the Bush Story for the Gullible (buildings collapsed due to fire alone). The list is from the AE911Truth.info site of Joseph Nobles, a voice writer with no degree in engineering (but a BA in Bible and dropped out of his Masters program). "

I made that list after someone asked about peer review papers about the WTC collapses. Get your **** together.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4354965#post4354965

 

[Earthborn]

I would love some dutch debunkers to give him a call and ask him if he has read the NIST final draft of wtc7 and ask him if he knows about the huge fires in wtc7, and if he still stands by his statement that the igniters would fail at 320C in office fires.

I have a feeling that he didn't realize it was on fire... but that is just a WAG.

There is no reason to call him, as the original interview answers all your questions. When he declared WTC7 a controlled demolition, he didn't know anything about it. Only later in the interview does he learn that there was fire, and though he sticks to his story he can't make any sense of it.

 

[Dave Rogers]

You should require more than one peer reviewed journal article, but you asked for one.

Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe by Niels H. Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven E. Jones, et. al Bentham Open Chemistry & Physics Journal.

It is a peer reviewed journal. Open means that it does not require a paid subscription to view. Just Google "Bentham Journal thermite" and look at the top.

Then look for the story about the managing editor of the journal having resigned in protest at the fact that this article was published without her consent or knowledge after having bypassed the peer-review process. This paper was not properly peer-reviewed; this is a matter of record.

Dave

 

[GlennB]

The context that's missing is that Jowenko also was only shown a brief video of the fires and also was not told the extent of the interior damage of the building....

If you really analyse those videos it's much worse than that. The interviewer leads endlessly, and flat-out lies a number of times. For example, in stating categorically that "you could walk right round the debris pile". At another point Jowenko is led to believe that the core consisted of 12 columns (".. these 12 .."). And so on. (from memory)

I suspect Jowenko over-invested his professional ego there, and feels embarrassed now.

And I always found that twoofer phone call in 2007 (?) call a little weird. Jowenko's home phone is not ex-directory by now, if it wasn't already? If it's his office, he picks up the call himself? Call me paranoid ....

 

[Bell]

If you really analyse those videos it's much worse than that. The interviewer leads endlessly, and flat-out lies a number of times. For example, in stating categorically that "you could walk right round the debris pile". At another point Jowenko is led to believe that the core consisted of 12 columns (".. these 12 .."). And so on. (from memory)

I suspect Jowenko over-invested his professional ego there, and feels embarrassed now.

And I always found that twoofer phone call in 2007 (?) call a little weird. Jowenko's home phone is not ex-directory by now, if it wasn't already? If it's his office, he picks up the call himself? Call me paranoid ....

Does anyone have a link to this phone call?

Eta: Listening to it now.

Eta 2: It does sound genuine. Voice seems right. Too bad he answers the phone with only his name, not a "Hallo..." or "Met..." (This is...) so I could not hear if it was Dutch or not. One thing that makes me wonder is, did Jowenko knew about the condition of WTC7? Or is he still going by the video he saw of it? In the end, though, it does not matter. It is just one expert's opinion on what happened to WTC7.

 

[Miragememories]

Danny Jowenko is a controlled demolitions expert from the Netherlands.
http://www.jowenko.com/index.php/1,3,1

In 2006, Danny Jowenko was interviewed for the Dutch news program; Zembia Investigates 9/11 Theories.

These are a few of the comments Danny made after viewing the video of WTC7's collapse.

Danny Jowenko:

"They simply blew up columns and the rest caved in afterwards."

"Yes, the rest implodes. This is controlled demolition."

"Absolutely, it's been imploded. This was a hired job. A team of experts did this."

[At this point Danny is informed that the video he has been watching was the collapse of WTC 7 on 9/11]

"Are you sure it was the 11th??? [9/11] That can't be."

"This is work of man."

"I think this is obviously a building that has been imploded."

"...you can cut them funnel-shaped [columns], a column then cannot go to the left or to the right, it remains standing but they are loose. If it then goes you get the effect, they don't need to apply cutter charges everywhere."

"I don't know, you maybe will need 20 guys with a cutting torch. They have such a column within 15 minutes in such a V-form. Let them do 4 floors then with so many people. Everything then is loose as... all possible. It is all possible. I'm convinced."

"I've looked at the drawings, at the construction, and it couldn't have been done by fire...so no, absolutely not..."

MM

 

[Miragememories]

So what?

Nothing about the collapse surprises anyone with relevant expertise that is familiar with WTC7's unusual all-steel structure and knows that the water source was destroyed on 9/11.

You'd never learn this stuff from Richard Gage, AIA.

If you want expertise BigAl it is readily available!

Danny Jowenko is a controlled demolitions expert from the Netherlands.
http://www.jowenko.com/index.php/1,3,1

In 2006, Danny Jowenko was interviewed for the Dutch news program; Zembia Investigates 9/11 Theories.

These are a few of the comments Danny made after viewing the video of WTC7's collapse.

Danny Jowenko:

"They simply blew up columns and the rest caved in afterwards."

"Yes, the rest implodes. This is controlled demolition."

"Absolutely, it's been imploded. This was a hired job. A team of experts did this."

[At this point Danny is informed that the video he has been watching was the collapse of WTC 7 on 9/11]

"Are you sure it was the 11th??? [9/11] That can't be."

"This is work of man."

"I think this is obviously a building that has been imploded."

"...you can cut them funnel-shaped [columns], a column then cannot go to the left or to the right, it remains standing but they are loose. If it then goes you get the effect, they don't need to apply cutter charges everywhere."

"I don't know, you maybe will need 20 guys with a cutting torch. They have such a column within 15 minutes in such a V-form. Let them do 4 floors then with so many people. Everything then is loose as... all possible. It is all possible. I'm convinced."

"I've looked at the drawings, at the construction, and it couldn't have been done by fire...so no, absolutely not..."

MM

 

[BigAl]

If you want expertise BigAl it is readily available!

Danny Jowenko is a controlled demolitions expert from the Netherlands.
http://www.jowenko.com/index.php/1,3,1

In 2006, Danny Jowenko was interviewed for the Dutch news program; Zembia Investigates 9/11 Theories.

These are a few of the comments Danny made after viewing the video of WTC7's collapse.

Danny Jowenko:

"I don't know, you maybe will need 20 guys with a cutting torch. They have such a column within 15 minutes in such a V-form. Let them do 4 floors then with so many people. Everything then is loose as... all possible. It is all possible. I'm convinced."


MM

Nobody prepared WTC7. Jowenko wasn't told that WTC7 was a fully occupied office building right up to the moment it was damaged by the collapse of the WTC towers,

Jowenko wasn't told that WTC7 burned for hours and that there was no water for firefighting.

Jowenko wasn't told of the unusual cantilever beam construction that contributed to the structural failure.

Nothing about the collapse surprises anyone with relevant expertise that is familiar with WTC7's unusual all-steel structure and that the water source was destroyed on 9/11.

You'd never learn this stuff from Richard Gage, AIA.

 

[Miragememories]

Nobody prepared WTC7. Jowenko wasn't told that WTC7 was a fully occupied office building right up to the moment it was damaged by the collapse of the WTC towers,

Jowenko wasn't told that WTC7 burned for hours and that there was no water for firefighting.

Jowenko wasn't told of the unusual cantilever beam construction that contributed to the structural failure.

Nothing about the collapse surprises anyone with relevant expertise that is familiar with WTC7's unusual all-steel structure and that the water source was destroyed on 9/11.

You'd never learn this stuff from Richard Gage, AIA.

As a followup, a few years later, Danny Jowenko was asked about his original conclusions.

In the time since he made his sensational observations, he had studied the WTC7 at great length.

He said he would change nothing from his original interview.

He remained absolutely convinced that WTC7 was felled by a controlled demolition.

MM

 

[BigAl]

As a followup, a few years later, Danny Jowenko was asked about his original conclusions.

In the time since he made his sensational observations, he had studied the WTC7 at great length.

He said he would change nothing from his original interview.

He remained absolutely convinced that WTC7 was felled by a controlled demolition.

MM

Was he told that WTC7 was an unusual all-steel building and that firefighting was impossible on 9/11?

You'd never learn this stuff from Richard Gage, AIA.

 

[DGM]

As a followup, a few years later, Danny Jowenko was asked about his original conclusions.

In the time since he made his sensational observations, he had studied the WTC7 at great length.

He said he would change nothing from his original interview.

He remained absolutely convinced that WTC7 was felled by a controlled demolition.

MM

And the towers absolutely were not.

We know!

 

[The Big Dog]

As a followup, a few years later, Danny Jowenko was asked about his original conclusions.

In the time since he made his sensational observations, he had studied the WTC7 at great length.

He said he would change nothing from his original interview.

He remained absolutely convinced that WTC7 was felled by a controlled demolition.

MM

Appeal to false authority.

Hey, MM, you ever notice that when truthers roll out somebody who said it looks like CD, they never find anyone who says it "sounded" like CD?

But thanks for rolling out Jowenko's statements from 2006. They have had such a "sensational" impact....

What brings you back here anyway, they close down the Loose Change forum, or you just got lonely?